K.N.Y.F.E.'s Incidental Contact - Need rules clarification

Card text:

KNYFE deals each target 1 energy damage.

KNYFE may deal any target dealt damage this way an additional 1 energy damage.

It is unclear to me whether I am allowed to apply the second effect to multiple targets.  Can I, for example, hit everyone for 1 damage and then opt for all the non-hero targets to take an additional 1 energy damage.  Or is it the case that only one target amongst all those damaged can be selected for the additional damage?

If it is the former, then this card is okay (basically a weaker version of Haka's Rampage).  If it is the latter, then this card is complete garbage.

It's the first one

The wording is quite clear. 

ANY target dealt that first 1 damage may be dealt an extra instance of damage. 

Since the second effect is dependant on the first, you would apply it as you go. So you are close. 

Deal target A 1 damage. You may deal it one more if you want. 

Move to target B deal it 1, decide if it gets hit again. 

Move to target C ect ect

You do *not* deal everyone the first damage then deal out the second, it doesn't work that way cmschex. Look up the Hypersonic Assault ruling. 

Step A- deal all targets 1 energy damage.  apply any buffs/resistances as needed.

Step B- You MAY deal any target that took damage from step A, 1 (one) energy damage, applying buffs/resistances as needed.  You can do this on a case by case basis.

You can absolutely do it to multiple targets.  it scales VERY well with damage multipliers (like parse/legacy/ra/her own focusing conduit blade), and is more forgiving than rampage or (potentially) oblivion.  it also works well with tricky cards like Twist the ether- KNYFE can have a LOT of fun with visionary.

I was responding to his question about if you can do that to all targets damaged vs only 1 target, not the timing of said damage

Ha ha! Would you refer to that as twisting the K.N.Y.F.E.?

I like to think of it as a far more controlled Oblivion (ala NightMist).

One spectacular effect that you can pull off is when you combine Incidental contact with Flawless Execution.  

I once flawlessly executed voss's army.  After a forced deployment.  (well- except for the Ion-lancer who was immune.  I punched him to death...flawlessly.)

Well, you have to do it on a case by case basis. You do not deal all targets 1 and THEN decide who gets the extra hits. Hypersonic Assault ruling applies here.

Yes.  Yes I would.

Well, you have to do it on a case by case basis. You do not deal all targets 1 and THEN decide who gets the extra hits. Hypersonic Assault ruling applies here.

If the card says "deal all targets some damage", period/end of sentence, then says you may do something else, I don't see how you can do anything but deal all targets some damage and only then decide if you're going to do the follow up thing.

I think that we are arguing the same exact point.  Let me re-phrase.

Hypersonic assault requires that everyone who takes damage gets the effect: cannot do damage.  

For incidental contact, everyone who takes damage from step A gets the effect: KNYFE may deal this target 1 energy damage.

For each effected (took damage) target (of step A), KNYFE makes the decision (on a case by case basis, predicated on whether or not they took damage in step A) of applying the secondary effect.  the secondary effect being that she MAY deal them 1 energy damage (or not, if that is what she decided to do).  

Basically, you see who gets hit from the first wave- and then you decide which of that set gets hit again.  

Should I type the words "Hypersonic Assault ruling" once more? The first two times you must have missed. That's how. The 2nd paragraph is a dependant effect based off the first damage actually happening. It then falls under consecutive effects, which happen from newest to oldest like always and it indeed interrupts the first. 

You can type "Hypersonic Assault ruling" as many times as you want, but I'm not aware of an actual "Hypersonic Assault ruling".  I think there's a general "Hypersonic Assault agreement" in that if you damage someone with Hypersonic Assault, they can't damage you back, but if that was ever confirmed with an actual ruling, I don't have it captured in my FAQ.

Ha, I just checked my own FAQ, and sonofagun if it isn't there in black and white.  I've even got a URL link to the ruling.  The second sentence isn't meant to be a separate step, it's meant to modify what's going on in the first sentence.

I withdraw my comments and defer to the gentlemen from the Foote.

Oh I remember long threads arguing over the proper way to play Hypersonic Assault. I have that ruling burned deep haha.

So, just to clarify the proper steps here:

Target A gets dealt 1 damage from Incidental Contact. If damage is dealt (HP lowered), that triggers the secondary effect. By common rule, consecutive triggers resolve from newest to oldest. Resolve the second effect from Incidental Contact for target A

Move to Target B. Repeat above.

Move to Target C. Repeat. and so on.

I'm not sure what you all are debating.  What was unclear to me was whether I could apply the additional damage to multiple targets or only one.  What are you guys talking about with this timing stuff?

It actually matters a lot, because if you can apply both doses of damage at the same time (as it appears your can), then you might very will kill off a target that is providing DR to subsequent targets, which could not only reduce the damage they take, but make them NOT candidates for the second part (by virtue of not taking damage), so the order is very relevant.

We're arguing about how to resolve the timing of the steps on the card.  In some cases, when an effect happens is absolutely critical.

Hypersonic assault (for instance) caused a debate, because there are targets that deal damage in retaliation, or in response to cards being destroyed (such as the chairman dealing damage when being hit, or the Matriarch hitting when birds are destroyed).

The debate centered around WHEN the secondary effect (targets can't deal damage) happened- did it happen as soon as a target was dealt damage?  did it happen after ALL targets were dealt damage?

If you resolved the entire card one target at a time (which was the eventual ruling), then you could pull off a lot of fun tricks like hitting the Matriarch first (so that she couldn't deal damage), and then taking out her entire army of birds with the rest of Hypersonic Assault.

In response to your question:  

you can apply the additional damage to multiple targets.  You do this one target at a time- deal a target 1 energy, then if it took damage, you decide if you are going to deal it 1 more energy damage.  Once this is accomplished for one target, move on to the next target.  

There is a difference in wording.

A pretty big one.

If it was worded like Hypersonic it would say:

"Targets dealt damage this way may be dealt an additional 1 damage by Knyfe."

or

"When Knyfe deals a target damage this way she may deal that target an additional 1 damage."

It is definitely not obvious that they fit under the same ruling when they are worded that differently.

If we have official word on the timing that is one thing, but it is not at all clear that this card follows Hypersonic's ruling when it is worded very differently.

A sentence can be structured differently and still mean the same thing. I see no evidence that they should be treated any differently.

Besides, the wording is not in question. In fact, the particular wording doesnt matter at all because of how Consecutive Effects resolve in the game.

The second sentence is a triggered effect that is triggered by the first effect. That is the facts, and slight difference in sentence structure doesn't alter that.

The only way Hypersonic Assault ruling does apply here is if the second sentence is not a triggered, dependant effect of the first. Does anyone want to try their hand at that?

It doesn't read like a trigger to me.

It reads like a limiting condition on a second effect.

You could write a power to say:

Power: KNYFE may deal any target dealt damage this turn an additional 1 energy damage.

It would work.  The changed word is "way" to "turn."

This is not an if->then statement, I don't see where the wording makes it a triggered effect.

But it is, just not explicitly.

"KNYFE may deal any target damaged this way an additional 1 damage" can be rewritten as "If KNYFE deals a target damage this way, you may deal them an additional 1 damage". They are identical. 

The second effect is dependant upon the first effect. Without the first effect actually happening and lowering HP, the second effect can't and won't happen. In other words, the second effect is triggered by the damage of the first.

Skippy, go read the text on Hypersonic Assault. That is not written as an explicit "If/then" either, but the ruling was clear.

Yes, because the effect is dependant on the prior effect, without having a choice or a second step involved.

Every effect is dependant on something in order to act, but they aren't all triggered.  

Supersonic Response's second effect is dependant on damage having been dealt, but is not a triggered response to it.

Thermal Shockwave's fire damage is dependant on AZ dealing cold damage, but it is not triggered by cold damage being dealt.

The wording of this card leaves it unclear as to whether it is intended to be a triggered effect (I don't believe any other triggered effect has that same wording) or a second effect that is dependant on the results of the first step.

Blatantly wrong. Every effect is triggered by something.

Correct, but don't try and compare Supersonic Response and Hypersonic Assault/Incidental Contact like they are anything close to similar. Both of the effects on Supersonic are independant of each other, but share a common trigger (playing the one-shot). The second effect has a conditional clause that must be met, but it is still an independant effect.

Similarly, the conditional clause of Hypersonic and Incidental is that the first effect must have happened. You do not see the profound difference in a second effect being dependant on the first in this case, and the conditional clause of an independant effect of Supersonic?

Correct. Thermal Shockwave is triggered by using the Power. The cold damage is not a part of the trigger, but part of the condition of the damage modifier. See the difference here again?

Nah, its pretty clear since Hypersoinc ruling. What, you dont have a problem with that ruling but have one here? How does that work out? You know the wording on that one right? It starts with "Targets dealt damage this way…" and that has been ruled to be a triggered effect. 

I agree with phantaskippy here.  I don't have my Vengence cards yet so I'm going with the assumption that the text listed in the original post correctly represents how the text is listed on the card.

KNYFE deals each target 1 energy damage.

KNYFE may deal any target dealt damage this way an additional 1 energy damage.

This is actually the same format as one of Chrono's cards. I don't have my cards with me and don't remember the exact name but in essense it's:

Dealt a target some damage

Deal a target some damage

Now in Chrono's case, both instances of damage can be to the same target because there is no limiting factors between the two lines.  The second line is also neither dependent nor triggered by the first line.

In the case of K.N.Y.F.E.S's card in question, the second line is not triggered by the first line.  It does however have a limiting factor in that it is dependent upon the success of the first line.

TL;DR: The first line happens completely, then the second line can happen.  This is very similar to Hypersonic Assault but it is not the same case as Hypersonic Assault.

Tell me, what do you think a "trigger" actually is?

Explain to me how Hypersonic Assault's 2nd effect is triggered but Incidental's is not.

Can't wait for this. I'll go get the popcorn.

Could we dial the confrontation down a notch?

If you could, please explain the differences with examples (preferrably one example where the difference doesn't matter and one where it does).  Then we can understand where each side is at and try and bridge things from there.

Case A (Foote) is this: KNYFE hits a target, then immediately acts on the second sentence, and chooses whether or not to hit them again, and THEN moves on to the second target, repeating this process for each target. Let's just call this "Option A," for solidarity and consistancy and whatever.

Case B (Skippy) is this: KNYFE hits every target, and THEN goes through and decides which ones she wants to hit them a second time. Let's call this "Option B."

Personally, I think A has the most evidence, as the official ruling for Hypersonic Assault (which had basically the exact same formatting of "hit everybody. something happens to whoever took damage this way." ) was that the second sentence (targets that take damage this way cannot deal damage) triggered IMMEDIATELY upon the dealing of the damage, and someone with retaliations like The Chairman or Miss Information would instantly be blocked from counterattacking, rather than being able to hit back if you weren't done hitting every target in play. Therefore, this card should work the same way; you hit something, and then -- because it took damage -- you are immediately granted the option of hitting it again.

the only time I can see this being really important (as we are dealing strictly with damage as a seconidary effect) is when enemies that grant damage resistance are in play.  To keep this simple, we should assume that in this example, the enemy grants damage resistance to everything except itself (or else you have to get clever with buffs/flawless execution/nattering about with how much HP it has...)

Case A: Hit enemy granting damage resistance (to other things, not itself) 1 time.  Hit enemy granting damage resistance again.  (killing enemy granting damage resistance).

Move to the next target (which no longer benefits from damage resistance granted by slain enemy).

Case B: Hit enemy granting damage resistance (to other things, not itself) (it lives).  Move to the next target, which has damage resistance (dealing no damage), then subsequent targets (dealing no damage, as they are protected by the first one), then hero/environment targets.

THEN, you may deal 1 point to the enemy providing damage resistance (to other things, not itself), killing it.  Unfortunately, all other (non-hero) targets were protected during the first wave of damage, so you can't choose to deal them anything.

In this set of examples, the first option (dealing damage one step at a time, one target at a time) is more flexible, as it allows you to pick off targets that might otherwise protect or prevent you from dealing damage.

That would be hideously awkward.

or"When Knyfe deals a target damage this way she may deal that target an additional 1 damage."

This however would work fine.  I would like it if Christopher could clarify.

Scenario:  Knyfe has a +1 to damage.  Citizen Truth is in play with 2 HP.  Knyfe deals 1 net damage to Truth.  May she then deal 1 more net damage to him, kill him, then deal net 4 damage to all other Citizens?  Or must she first hit all other citizens for net 1 damage that they're immune to, then kill Truth and be unable to hit any of the others with secondary damage because they didn't take the primary damage?

Case A is correct! Long Live Case A!

Good discussion, everyone. I always enjoy seeing a lively rules debate. In the future, please keep it as civil and non-absolutist as possible. No matter how 100% correct a person may think they are, there's still room for leniency and civility. 

Don't worry - this isn't a strict admonition or anything like that. Just wanting to maintain the nicest and best damn online community I've ever had the opportunity to be a part of. 

Let's all keep being awesome together!

So it is hit first target, if damage is done KNYFE must decide whether or not to deal it an additional damage, then you move to the next target.

OK, thanks for the officialness.

Foote:  Saying the second is triggered by the first, and therefore works under the hypersonic ruling is far different than saying everything has a trigger.

What exactly are you arguing?

Secondly the ruling on Hypersonic states the the second line of Hypersonic is modifying the damage from the first line, not a response trigger.

If we used that logic on this card we would count the second line as a modifier, and KNYFE would deal that target 2 damage, instead of 2 instances of 1 damage.

That is not a modifier.  That is a second instance of damage.  It is nothing like the Hypersonic Ruling.

How about if KNYFE hits a sonic mine? 

Strict Admonition would be a great name for a card. 

That one will be in the special April 1 limited-release environment deck: "Stuck in the Bureaucracy".  Along with "Strongly Worded Letter",  "Past Due Notice", and six copies of "Sent Back to the Start of the Queue".

Well, given that it's ruling A…just save it for last.

It's an interrupt trigger, so you could skip hitting the heroes if you hit all the villain targets twice each and THEN blew up the mine. Assuming that was the question.

What Christopher said was directed at me obviously. My bad guys. 

@Skippy, being a modifier to the damage can mean a lot of things. Hypersonics damage is modified with an effect (being a damage prevention component). Why can't it be modified the same way with an effect that has an optional damage component? That's what this is. Being a triggered effect, well, that effect modifier is still conditional, meaning it must nessesarily be triggered when the condition is met. 

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense to me.

We have our official ruling on how it is handled, so I think we can let it go here.

Maybe it will make sense tomorrow.

Skippy, do you play a lot of CCGs like Magic or L5r? Or LCGs like Netrunner or Game of thrones?

a) If you do, then you are falling under the fiddlyiness of competitive card gaming - where the exact wording on a card, if slightly different than another, may make the difference between winning and not winning because of the order in which an effect occurs. This is because those games are competitive and only one person wins. 'the wording on these two cards is not 100% identical' is a common line of reasoning from such types of players. This is why games like Magic and L5R strive so hard to have a formal template on how to word cards, something like price ; effect so all cards are worded with a semicolon between price and effect (not that that is the format, but its an example)

b) if you don't play those, well you're still falling under that fiddlyiness. Remember. SotM is a co-operative card game. It also does not have a formal template for wording on cards, but its meant to be taken with a healthy does of 'what feels right' - These two cards are very similar in manner - do one thing successfully, and if you did that thing do another thing - the wordings may be different, but the feel is the same, and because we've had rulling on high about one such card, it applies to all similar cards, even if the wording isnt exactly 100% similar.

Great post, Lynkfox - that is a beautifully worded explanation. Thanks!

I do understand this, I get argumentative when I think people are making assumptions that aren't supported.  When we say, "Oh, this is the way it is," when it really isn't clear.  I can understand the official ruling on the card, and in fact I agree with it; but the logic process that has that ruling flowing from a ruling on a card with completely different wording doesn't make sense.

Let me try a different track

Thats  because you're still following the thought process that the wording has to be 100% the same in order to have the same effect.  I am a very big LCG/CCG player - years of magic, currently L5R, and Android Netrunner, and these fiddly not exactly the same wording situations will mean a card interacts differently - because we always have to play with Read as Written  (RaW) - you can't look at a card and see what the designer intended, because what I think and what my opponent across the table thinks may be two different things, and in a game where there can only be one winner, this is a big problem. However reading it straight up logically in a manner that (most) people agree is the same reading (or better yet with evidence from other, same worded cards) doesn't allow for one player to think they won and the other to think so as well. This is Read as Written. with RaW you are exactly right - if they are not 100% the same wording, then they will act differently.

Luckily here, we have Christopher on hand, and also not being a Competitive game, we can very certainly Read as Intended (RaI) because we can make inferences based on what we know of Christopher and he can even give us inputs. Then because it is not competitive, no one is hurt if one group plays it one way and another group plays it slightly different. Sure if those two groups get together there may be a disagreement, but even then - the players are still going to win or loose together, not one group is going to win and the other is going to loose because of a disagreement of wording.  The intent behind this card was for it to act similarly to Hypersonic Assault. Because we already have a rulling on that card, we can apply that same rulling here, because RaI shows them to be similar action cards, and under RaI wording is not as important as the overall effects of the card itself.

I just want to verify my assumption with this card -- when it says "KNYFE may deal any target dealt damage this way an additional 1 energy damage", that doesn't mean that she deals the target 2 energy damage.  It means she deals them 1 energy damage and then a second instance of 1 energy damage, correct?

I am not following the wording alone, but the steps that wording cause to take place.

Hypersonic Assault does not involve a choice.

Hypersonic assault does not involve a seperate effect.

The Second line of Hypersonic Assault is a modification, it modifies the effect of the first line.

A second instance of damage is not a modification of an instance of damage.

A second instance of damage is a seperate effect.

It makes a much better comparison to Pride and Prejudice than Hypersonic assault.

Just Like Shock Rounds is not a modification of the damage dealt by the gun it is loaded in.  It is a seperate effect, triggered by the first effect.

Another comparison I would make is Imbued Fire vs. Twist the Ether.

The cause is damage being dealt by a qualifying dealer.

The effect of Imbued Fire is a modification of that damage.

The effect of Twist the Ether is a choice of effects.

There is not a perfect comparison for this game, but there are far better comparisons than Hypersonic Assault, and certainly they are not similar enough to use the same ruling.

I have no disagreement with how the card officially resolves.  It makes sense.

But it does not fall under a ruling from a card that different than it mechanically.  

That's correct, Spiff. So if KNYFE has a +1, she's doing an instance of 2 damage to everything and a second, optional instance of 2 damage to anything that took the first instance.

Okay, i sorta see wehre you are going.

In fact, i think the reason you are having trouble with applying the Hypersonic Ruling to this card is because you possibly are seeing the ruling as 'If you have a card that gives you two effects, the second one being a modifier of the first ... (ect into the ruling)'

Where as the rulling is better thought of 'If you have a card that simultaneously applies multiple effects to multiple targets, players may apply both effects at once to each target before moving on to the next' -  Both of these cards have more than one (multiple) effects that apply to multiple targets, so the ruling is that players get to apply them both at the same time to each target before moving on - KNYFE gets a May conditional in that, but it still is both effects at once.

when it says "KNYFE may deal any target dealt damage this way an additional 1 energy damage", that doesn't mean that she deals the target 2 energy damage. It means she deals them 1 energy damage and then a second instance of 1 energy damage, correct?

 Correct!

Obviously Christopher already answered, but if the second one were correct it would say something like "You may increase any damage dealt this way by 1."

Even if it isn't competitive, I feel that it's appropriate that it should have the same strictness of templating that competitive games use, so that you can be sure that you really earn your victories by playing the game exactly right.  Every time I make a mistake, I feel dumb about it; I would be happier if the game were as airtight and idiot-proof as possible, so that I could always be sure that the credit for victory or fault for defeat lies solely upon myself and the other players (and Lady Luck), our strategic and tactical decisions, not just our ability to make rules calls in our own favor.

EDIT - I do however agree with the logic of your second post, that we can get answers straight from Christopher or just use a "gut impression" of what he was probably going for, based on past rulings.  In a lot of cases, that's good enough.  Given that my superhero ID is "The Perfectionist", I always wish it could be better, but what we have is certainly better than what Magic has, where there's a guy at WOTCO HQ whose entire job is to constantly find fault with the rulings and publish a quarterly report of updated wordings.

Old thread, but with the wording on the card does this also mean KNYFE deals the initial one damage to herself too?

Yep.